Judaism is a Political Project
Article by Hervé Ryssen published on July 21, 2013.
We have amply demonstrated in the chapters of our books that Jewish intellectuals of all persuasions push as hard as they can for immigration into the countries where they have settled. Their aim is to dissolve ethnically homogenous societies and promote intermarriage, the ultimate aim being to unify the world and establish a world government.
“Once European-wide institutions have been put into place, there will perhaps be an urgent need for a world government”, Jacques Attali tells us in his Dictionnaire du XXIe siècle.
The multicultural society, together with a weakening in the sense of national belonging, also allows Jews to protect themselves from a surge in nationalism, which they associate with very bad memories. There are countless quotes on this issue. Without exception, all Jewish intellectuals focus on the “pluralistic” society and constantly exercise “anti-racist vigilance”.
In L’Humanité perdue (1996), the philosopher Alain Finkielkraut explains that: “The deadly risk to the world posed by the worship of national identity, the segmentation of humanity, and the confinement of individuals within their race or their culture, can only be averted once and for all by the creation of multi-ethnic societies”
Bernard-Henri Lévy takes a much more explicit line, one which more clearly reflects the cosmopolitan desire to destroy nations:
“The European machine has come to oppose this mystical nationalism and has begun to send it back to the historical house of horrors. With the death of nationalism, the Jews will lose their most deadly enemies.” (Récidives, 2004)
The multimillionaire philosopher is quick to specify the nature of this democratic Europe which, he believes, should not be “yet another nation” but “a system capable of processing, breaking, crushing and, ultimately, necrotising national identities and fixations”.
Immigration as a necessity
Jewish intellectuals always tell us that immigration is an economic necessity, an essential contribution, extraordinarily beneficial, etc. Take, for instance, the November 2005 World Bank report which encouraged Russia to open its borders. In the report, we read that immigration “is one of the key requirements for stable economic growth. The country’s population is ageing and declining… In order to fully offset depopulation, an annual inflow of a million employable immigrants would be required”. And who was at the head of the World Bank at the time? Paul Wolfowitz, a fervent Zionist and one of the most staunch advocates of the war against Iraq in 2003.
An article published in Libération on 25 July 2005 warned us that: “According to the Eurostat forecasts, analysed by Serge Feld from the University of Louvain, the European Union will lose 14 million residents by 2030”. This risk “can only be reduced by continuous immigration”. And we’re assured that, by 2030, “immigration will add 25 million residents to the EU”. This article, entitled “Immigration to the Rescue of Europe” (“L’immigration au secours de l’Europe”), was written by a certain Éric Aeschlimann.
For all these Jewish intellectuals, who are kind enough to remind us about our pensions, it is out of the question that Europeans should resort to policies aimed at increasing the birth rate. Daniel Cohn-Bendit expressed this clearly: “A birth-rate policy seems to me to be totally pointless…The family in itself has no merit”. At the same time, Cohn-Bendit promotes homosexual couples: “What is much more important, as far as I’m concerned, is the relationship within the couple. Whatever the gender of the partners may be: a homosexual couple should have the same rights as heterosexual couple”. (Une Envie de politique, 1998)
Immigration is an Opportunity
Everybody knows the phrase Immigration is an opportunity for France the title of a book, written by the former minister Bernard Stasi (L’immigration, une chance pour la France, 1984). Writing in Le Figaro on 13 October 2004, the news editor Alexandre Adler urges us to let Turkey into Europe. Turkey which has “free elections, a free press, intellectuals which are equal to ours, marvellous and outward-looking universities” represents “a fabulous opportunity… Let’s understand this sign today in order to safeguard the freedom of our continent tomorrow”.
One of Jacques Chirac’s key advisors, Pierre Lellouche, who was once member of the liberal right and president of the NATO Assembly, puts it more bluntly: “Because Turkey is a Muslim country, I want it to join the European Union”.
Glorification of Intermarriage
Jewish intellectuals are forever glorifying intermarriage. But it must be understood that this is something which is reserved for export purposes only, for the Jews are duty-bound to protect their identity and not intermarry with other races. “We want networks to develop in the planetary fabric, we call for the mixture of races”, writes Edgar Morin (Nahoum) in his book Terre-Patrie (1993). “We haven’t got the Promised Land but we have an aspiration, a desire, a myth, a dream: turn planet earth into a common homeland.”
In his Dictionnaire du XXIe siècle (1998), Jacques Attali writes that we must: “promote diversity, share the wealth…be open to other cultures, encourage all forms of intermarriage, learn to think globally”. This sort of reasoning allows the theatrical media figure Daniel Cohn-Bendit to declare his love of France, while mixing everything up: “What I like about France, is its cosmopolitanism. Blacks, Arabs, Jews. That’s the main reason why I love France.” (Juifs et Français, 1979). The “general public” can easily verify this relentless globalist propaganda in the cinema (on this subject, refer to our five books).
In 2003, former socialist prime minister Laurent Fabius, who is of Jewish origin and fantastically wealthy, declared that: “France will have taken a decisive step the day when the Marianne of our town halls has the beautiful face of a young woman from an immigrant family”.
Nicolas Sarkozy, whose mother’s maiden name is Mallah, said the same thing in his inaugural speech, made before the Liberal party convention on the 14 January 2007: “I want to be a president of a France which has understood that creation will come from mixture, from openness, from meeting others, I am not afraid to use the word, from intermarriage”. But he has only ever married Jewish women.
An inevitable phenomenon
Jewish intellectuals would also have us believe that any attempt to stop this phenomenon would be futile, as if the destiny of humanity had been pre-ordained by higher forces. Take the statement made on 13 October 2005 by Jean “Daniel” (Bensaïd), owner of the Nouvel Observateur: “Nothing will stop the migration of poor people to an old and wealthy West…This is why it would be now wise and reasonable to behave as if there will be more and more immigrants whom we should prepare to welcome.”
Alain Minc, his political “enemy”, argues for the same thing in La Vengeance des Nations (1990). Immigration is an “unavoidable prospect”, he says. “Immigration will increase: we might as well prepare for this and prepare the French rather than letting them delude themselves on the basis of the current situation which is less perilous than they care to believe”. In La Machine égalitaire, published in 1987, he talks about immigration as if it were a biblical revelation. The chapter entitled The Ten Commandments (Les Dix commandements) makes this absolutely clear: “Between a Europe in the throes of depopulation and overpopulated southern Mediterranean countries, an overflow phenomenon is inevitable.”
In his book, Une Envie de Politique (1998), Daniel Cohn-Bendit stresses the need for Europeans to open wide their… borders. Cohn-Bendit, a former anarchist, now recommends the American liberal model: “Europe must think of itself as a region of immigration, in the same way as the United States”. And Cohn-Bendit adds: “We must realise that there will always be immigration because of the wide inequality between the industrialised countries and the developing countries of Africa and the Maghreb…This applies to the whole of Europe”
It is worth noting that traditional Marxism once considered the “classless society” as being “inevitable”. But, as you have understood, we are not dealing here with serious analysis but propaganda which aims to stop us from even thinking of defending ourselves.
We are overcautious
In 1982, Albert Memmi wrote about racism, in his book entitled Le Racisme. In France, “a fearful or derisive contempt of any foreigner, an impenetrable reserve, an almost non-existent welcome…a forever resurgent jingoism reveal that the hostile fear of others still lies dormant.”
Clearly, the French are not very friendly people, but it is still nice to live in their country, though. In his book L’Idéologie française (1981), Bernard-Henri Lévy wrote that homelands, regional dialects, traditions are all just a “fearful and tense retreat into the poorest of identities”. Alain Minc also lectures us in his own way, assuring us that “ignorance feeds xenophobia” and that we must, therefore, “fight against the insanity of xenophobia” and put an end to “French paranoia”. We must, he says, “break away from our mental rigidity”.
Contempt for the Goy
Jewish intellectuals often express their contempt for our ancient civilisations. One recalls Georges-Marc Benamou’s letter, which appeared in the editorial of the first edition of Globe, a monthly magazine launched in 1985 by Pierre Bergé, the obscenely rich socialist and owner of Yves Saint-Laurent: “Of course, we are resolutely cosmopolitan. Of course, anything to do with region, drunken revelry, anything typically French or jingoistic, in short, is foreign to us, not to say despicable”.
In L’Idéologie française (1981) Bernard-Henri Levy already talked of “crass foolishness” when referring to bagpipes and drunk people. “Homelands of all sorts and their procession of stale ideas” disgust him. Guy Konopnicki makes the same sort of comments when referring to “the worship of land, rapture before peasant virtues, homespun philosophy, popular common sense and all sorts of stale, reactionary ideas” (La Place de la Nation, 1983).
Jewish intellectuals frequently demonstrate a clear inclination for expressing tremendous untruths. They’ll tell us, for instance, that immigration has not increased, that it has never been so low, that races do not exist, etc. This tendency to take the goy for an idiot is called “chutzpah” (written “Chuzpe” in German, and pronounced “h’ouztpah” while rasping the throat). Take the Marxist philosopher Jacques Derrida who tells us that “there’s plenty more room than people think to welcome more foreigners…immigration has not increased, contrary to what is claimed” (De quoi demain…, 2001).
In March 2008, the magazine Géo Histoire published an interview with the demographer Gérard Noiriel. The interview was entitled The Delusion of Identity (Le fantasme identitaire): “Drawing on his research, he can point out that immigration into France is at its lowest level in over 150 years. Figures for 2007 reveal that there had been no significant increase in immigration for over 30 years. The statistics produced by INED (Institut national des Études démographiques) prove it: there are fewer foreigners today than there were in 1997”.
The former minister Jack Lang displays the same Talmudic tendencies. On Saturday 3 September, he appeared in the TV programme Tout le monde en parle. Thierry Ardisson put the question to him bluntly: “Don’t you think there too many immigrants in France?” Jack Lang replied: “No, you know, France is the country with the lowest number of immigrants in Europe”.
In a similar vein, scientists, such as Roger-Gérard Schwartzenberg or Axel Kahn, assure us that “races do not exist”. And, as everyone knows, we all come from Africa! The prize, however, goes to the essayist Guy Sorman, who, in his book En attendant les barbares (1992), claims: “It is not the presence of foreigners which is the cause of racism but their
absence: the obsessive fear of the immigrant is the harbinger of violence, much more so than the immigrant himself”. And, besides, “Wasn’t France a century ago with its hundreds of dialects, patois, and regional languages, more multicultural than it is today?”
Obviously, these people have a rare ability to take people for idiots. If you now come across a Jew who holds different views from those above, then, quite simply, he is not Jewish. As Joseph Goebbels, an expert in the matter once said: “We decide who is Jewish and who is not”.
Translated from French
Source : Jeune Nation http://www.jeune-nation.com/politique/le-judaisme-est-un-projet-politique.html